Rust: exclude uncompiled files from semantics and surface semantic-less reason #17920
Conversation
rust/extractor/src/rust_analyzer.rs
Outdated
| .into_iter() | ||
| .flat_map(|x| x.to_vec()) | ||
| .collect(); | ||
| let mut no_semantics_reason = ""; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be as follows, or are there code paths where the variable is used before it is initialised?
| let mut no_semantics_reason = ""; | |
| let no_semantics_reason; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, I had tried that, but the reason it was not working had to do with some nesting I didn't notice right away. Fixed now!
| @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ impl<'a> Translator<'a> { | |||
| self.path, | |||
| start.line + 1, | |||
| start.col + 1, | |||
| &message | |||
| &full_message | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the reason for this change? I think the full message (possibly multi-line markdown format) is for a long message to be displayed on the tool status page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think more information is better in the logs, and I don't mind it being multiline. Maybe we can try this out, and revert it if we find it too spammy?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
at the moment I don't think we have full messages that heavier than message, but we can reconsider if we start having them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently the message and full_message are the same in our code, so it doesn't matter much. I was just wondering what triggered the change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In case of the semantic-less warning, I preferred the additional context of stating what will not work for the extraction of a given source file. Not much more information for us, but I think it gives a better context to a user other than hard-core rust analysis developers like us reading the logs 🙂
rust/extractor/src/rust_analyzer.rs
Outdated
| } | ||
| no_semantics_reason = "file not found in project"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this line be moved to right after (or before) the debug! statement?
No description provided.